Communication is the key to compliance
Briefings on Infection Control, May 1, 2009
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login or subscribe to Briefings on Infection Control.
It’s difficult enough to establish effective means of communication between the IC team and frontline staff members in the same hospital, let alone other facilities.
But regardless of how difficult it may be, that’s what The Joint Commission (formerly JCAHO) is asking of facilities in standard IC.02.01.01, particularly in elements of performance (EP) 9–11. These EPs require facilities to communicate IC information among their own staff members as well as to outside authorities such as federal, state, and local regulators and other healthcare facilities during patient transfers.
Looking at state requirements
Each state is going to have a different set of requirements concerning reporting, but rest assured that a surveyor will know what standards your state has in place and whether you are following them, says Patty Burns, RN, CIC, comanager of the IC program at St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Edgewood, KY.
“I think they vary a lot,” Burns says of the state requirements. “So I think the very first thing The Joint Commission [surveyors are] going to do is prep themselves on what the regulations are in your state to make sure you are doing that.”
Pennsylvania state laws mandate hospitals report healthcare-associated infections (HAI) through Act 52. As a result, Pennsylvania hospitals report infections electronically through the National Healthcare Safety Network, with authority granted to the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council and the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority to access that information.
Although it was a rocky start at first, the reporting requirement actually made things a lot easier in the long run, says Deborah Frye, MT (ASCP), MBA, CIC, an infection preventionist at Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network in Allentown, PA.
This year, Lehigh Valley is up for its Joint Commission accreditation survey, and Act 52 has made that part of the preparation process easier because EP 9 is already met. “It sort of softens the burden of the Joint Commission requirements because you have all that data and you are able to identify areas of improvement,” says Frye.
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login or subscribe to Briefings on Infection Control.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Billing telemetry daily monitoring
- Credentialing monthly: What is the role of the credentials committee in addressing unprofessional conduct?
- Radiologist indicted for fraudulently signing reports
- New report reveals $47 billion in Medicare fraud
- 2010 ICD-9 code updates now available online
- National Quality Forum creates standardized set of data for electronic health records
- Master modifiers to ensure accurate reimbursement
- H1N1 hits Maine facility
- Don’t be scared into silence: Affiliation letter safeguards allow you to disclose more
- Understand the H1N1 Flu and how to code it
- E-mailed
-
- Radiologist indicted for fraudulently signing reports
- Credentialing monthly: What is the role of the credentials committee in addressing unprofessional conduct?
- Q/A: Billing telemetry daily monitoring
- National Quality Forum creates standardized set of data for electronic health records
- New report reveals $47 billion in Medicare fraud
- Hospice group to pay U.S. $1.83 million in False Claims Act suit
- Q/A: Billing for DME
- Revised MS.1.20 'huge improvement', out for comment again
- H1N1 hits Maine facility
- Providers report first RAC denials in Florida, South Carolina
- Searched
